Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan on Wednesday grilled Senior Advocate Vikas Singh over the comments made by him about the judge’s alleged political ambitions [Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar IAS].

Justice Swaminathan was today hearing a contempt of court plea alleging that government officers failed to implement the Court's order for lighting of the Karthigai deepam (lamp) on a deepathon (stone lamp pillar) atop the sacred Thiruparankundram hillock in Tamil Nadu.

As the Senior Counsel, appearing for the State authorities, began his arguments via video conference, Justice Swaminathan interjected and asked whether he wished to repeat the remarks attributed to him in news reports about the previous day’s court proceedings.

The Court was referring to Singh's submissions questioning the basis of Justice Swaminathan's direction to light the lamp. As reported by Bar & Bench, Singh had also submitted the following,

"I don't understand where has the judge gone, what all he is doing in this process. If he wants to contest elections".

However, Singh in response to Justice Swaminathan's pointed query said that he was unsure what was being referred to.

The judge explained that he had read in the newspapers about Singh's submission insinuating that he planned to contest polls.

"What appeared in the papers today. That I planned to contest the elections… repeat that again now. Repeat," Justice Swaminathan told Singh.

Singh responded that he did not want to repeat anything. However, Justice Swaminathan insisted that Singh repeat his submissions of yesterday.

“Would you mind repeating the words uttered yesterday before the division bench before me right now?” Justice Swaminathan asked.

Singh declined to repeat the remarks.

"No. I don’t want to," he said.

During the hearing today, Justice Swaminathan also asked the State Chief Secretary Thiru N Muruganandam to clarify why the district officers had not implemented the Court orders.

The Chief Secretary appeared before the Court after he was summoned over a pattern of alleged non‑compliance with judicial orders in the Thiruparankundram lamp‑lighting dispute.

The Court clarified that Muruganandam had not been summoned to revisit the merits of the earlier order in the lamp-lighting case.

“Be clear in your mind that I have not called you regarding the primary order passed by me in the main repudiation. I have called you only to get your feedback on what happened subsequently,” said Justice Swaminathan.

Justice Swaminathan said that he took seriously the suggestion that district collectors had attempted to circumvent and nullify the writ order he had passed under constitutional law.

He asked the Chief Secretary to explain whether the collectors had acted independently or on instructions from higher authorities.

"I want you to make a statement as to whether these district collectors have ordered entirely on their own or on instructions."

Muruganandam said that he would obtain the necessary details from officers and file a written reply.

However, the Chief Secretary also submitted that the State had “no intentions not to comply with any orders”.

He submitted that officers sometimes face difficulties due to financial constraints, law-and-order concerns or conflicting judicial pronouncements.

“In such cases, the officers know they have the right of appeal… In all the three instances mentioned by my lord, I think the officers have gone on writ appeal and the writ appeal is being heard,” Muruganandam said.

He added that maintaining law and order was the government’s “highest priority,” and sought four weeks’ time to file a comprehensive written reply.

At this, Justice Swaminathan referred to another matter filed by a litigant named Vincent concerning a family property dispute between brothers. The judge noted that the Court had passed an interim order restraining construction of a church on the unpartitioned land without prior approval.

The Court added that Vincent later filed another petition alleging disobedience. The judge noted that the government counsel had earlier also said that enforcement was not possible due to a “law and order problem.”

“What is this? When it comes to taking action against a church, lots of (issues) come up. When enforcing the Court’s order, your duty is to tackle the law-and-order issue and not throw the Court’s order aside," said Justice Swaminathan.

The Court directed the Chief Secretary to take a “responsible stand” on the next date of hearing and ensure that the written reply addresses all issues raised by it.